Teaching about Gender

He used the DeVos institute earlier in the thread as a reference.....unironically.

Plus all the absolute bunkum and drivel about transing the gay away, trans young people merely being mentally ill, cross dressing men, sexual fetishises....

Silly suggestion. Nobody is suggesting a girl who likes soccer or a boy who likes dolls is definitely trans.

Social contagion theory has been thoroughly debunked and is false, the research on so called social contagion has been found to be flawed. The original publishers of research on it had to apologise.

The last dozen or so posts show why this subject has no place being taught in schools TBH.

There is still too much disagreement on the topic as a whole, no common/agreed basis of definition, too much reliance on feelings or others perceptions of those feelings, a dependence on accepting certain ideas that are not based on facts (multiple genders or the idea that gender is a variable etc), reliance on terminology that is seen as offensive, meaningless or denigrating to some (Cis), the need to disregard biology or individual history and so on. It's a controversial ideology rather than science at this point.

Maybe in the future that'll change but right now we are nowhere near ready as adults to agree on this topic so we should absolutely not be passing it on to kids to sort out and thus I'll stand by my original assessment. Beyond instilling that people should be treated with decency and basic respect, and noting that some people feel different about the sex they were born as (and that's OK - but it doesn't mean you have to agree either), this has the potential to cause a lot more harm and confusion and confrontation than is needed.

Anything more than those basics should be left to parents to educate or decide on. It's not up to the teacher or the school to decide what ideologies should be taught unless those same parents sign off on it (in the same way as by sending their kids to a Catholic school, they are acknowledging that elements of the Catholic faith will be taught, advocated for, and indeed practised - communion etc)

Ah, you're clutching at straws, now.

Most of the last few pages is a small group of people chatting on an Internet forum - it's hardly compelling evidence.

And if we're going to shy away from awkward topics because there's 'disagreement" we might as well give up on education altogether.

I'm.not even going to bother with the Catholic schools argument - you already know (or should know) here the fallacy lies there.

It's reflective of discussions elsewhere - both on this site and off it. I'm comfortable with it being representative of a wider audience at this time.

Fundamentally it comes down to whether one accepts that someone CAN be whatever gender they identify as, and if you therefore accept that this makes them no different than a biological example of their chosen identity.

Considering this requires accepting their personal feelings/opinion as paramount and disregarding the facts and reality of biology and personal history, not to mention ones own values or opinions (if they are in conflict with this requirement), then it's not surprising there's so much discussion and disagreement on the topic.

I think my position is the fairest compromise. It acknowledges that some feel differently, encourages a basic level respect that ideally should be there anyway, but stays away from these ideological arguments in favour of more of a "each to their own/live and let live" approach.

I can't see why this is a problem unless the issue is that passive acceptance or even just apathy isn't enough, but rather that vocal acceptance and indeed advocacy is the goal.

Yes it mentioned it, along with lots of other papers .......because peer reviewed research always has a part about the current state of the field, objectively, and what the study itself offers.......that's how research works.

You need to check that what you are referencing is peer reviewed and in a decent journal. Some quangos opinion is not the same as verified research. It's like the COVID vaccine threads all over again.

We've had training from a couple of organisations but mostly, for staff, it was around language ect. Whether you agree or not duty of care would suggest being capaple of speaking to a student about these issues in the language used is helpful.

Resources are varied, depends on the year or group. More class would have someone identifying as trans than wouldn't I think so it's very much a part of the school life anyway. It is much less of an issue than people think. I would have touched on it in teaching gender stereotyping and in science. Kids are actually just very curious, like when you teach reproduction........they are almost starved for a place to just ask "what's going on", I'd imagine because it's taboo in other settings.

For me having the correct knowledge and language to talk to students about their lived experience is important and a sign of respect. I do the same for lots of students for lots of reasons to make them feel included. I think people really think teachers have more power than they do, we can't stop the kids spending hours or tictoc or vaping all over the place .........my job would be a hell of a lot easier if teenagers were as suggestable as some are claiming here. We've seen no contagion I can identify, and very little is really said about it in the main. We've other, much bigger issues on a daily basis.

The autism link is worth investigating for sure, so far data is a bit scattershot but it looks like some form of correlation but that isn't causation. Could easily be an epiphenomenon either. We won't know until more research is done.

I suppose it doesn't come within my subject remit so I don't encounter it as much as biology, sphe, cspe or religion teachers.

If I were to talk about it then I'd take the socratic approach and ask all the questions. I'd be very hesitant in saying "this is the way it is" as we live in a contextual world.

Also if you go into the area of psychology or quoting studies then you'll need to be careful who your audience is (same as anorexia, suicide etc).

Yes; and that's a loaded question because 1) who said feelings shouldn't be affirmed?; and 2) I never commented on kids transitioning.

We're talking about educating them.

Simple questions, yes or no (but feel free to say more if you want).

• Do you want children to get the knowledge about the gender spectrum in a controlled manner from a teacher in school?, Or
• Do you want children to get the knowledge from unconfirmed internet sources, exposing them to propaganda before they can form an informed opinion?

Can you answer these questions or not?

"It's not scaremongering on the side of those not wanting children to transition. It's child safeguarding. How on earth could a child of 5-12 possibly understand the implications of socially transitioning then starting puberty blockers and later having gender reassignment surgery? How on earth would affirming a young child's belief as a responsible adult in their lives not solidify that belief."

Yes this above - first principle: Do no harm. Time evens many bumps along the road.

Too many people with other agendas trying to influence the life paths of children growing up and where growing is the important concept.

Same question to the poster above: are you under the impression that teaching is going to be replaced by promotion? That gender affirmation of a potentially transkid is going to happen in the classroom? That pubery blockers and surgery are going to be on the curriculum?

My questions are simple, you are just trying to derail the discussion. Teaching about something is not the same as promoting it.

Your analogy regarding paganism is a good one. I hope that religion classes in schools include the history aspect of all world religions, and describe ancient religious practices, such as shamanism or paganism.

I've an idea - have an explanatory session laying out the pros and cons for the parents of every primary school.

Take a vote on whether these parents wish to have their children exposed to these matters.

Remember parents are the primary guardians and educators of their children,

Accept the result that a very large majority will choose to let sleeping dogs lie, do no harm, let things work out in time if needed. End of.

How does that help the kids who need the information?

That's a good question and underlies my point.

I know there's one religion syllabus or should I say specification!. But the teaching and promotion ( and demotion ) of certain/all/no religions takes place on a daily basis depending on the school and teacher.

So who oversees the teachers to ensure they are teaching and not promoting or otherwise? Where are the guidelines on the actual teaching practice being taught in 3rd Level?

What? So you are saying lots of sexual fetishists are pretending to be trans?

Again your ideology of pretending trans children don't exist and forcing trans children to not be trans is harmful. It's laughable to keep on about "do no harm"

Are you a teacher? Do you have any children yourself? Or are you just here with an agenda?

I ask, as you must surely know and I repeat that parents are the primary guardians and educators of their children. End of.

Parents make decisions daily for children, more so when they are young and perhaps less in teenage years. Parents are responsible for their children and make decisions in what they consider their child's best interests. They are less interested in how other people think they should raise their children, as it's really none of their business at the end of the day.

That's why you might inform parents and let them decide collectively how such matters should be dealt with in school.

And you know what, if as a parent you don't like that decision and wish to do things differently, then you take the child out of school and educate them yourself. Lots do it.